alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 418.1265 What kind of significant modified adjusted gross income reduction evidence will you need to support your request? ( a ) You must provide evidence that one or more of the major life-changing events described in § 418.1205 resulted in a significant reduction in your modified adjusted gross income for the tax year you request we use.
( b ) The preferred evidence is your retained copy of your filed Federal income tax return, your retained copy of your amended tax return with an IRS letter of receipt of the amended tax return, your copy of proof of a correction of the IRS information we used or a copy of your return or amended or proof of a correction of tax return information that you obtain from IRS for the more recent tax year you request we use.
( c ) When a copy of your filed Federal income tax return is not available for the more recent tax year in which your modified adjusted gross income was significantly reduced, we will accept equivalent evidence. Equivalent evidence is the appropriate proof(s) in paragraphs (c)(1), (2) and (3) of this section, plus your signed statement under penalty of perjury that the information you provide is true and correct. When the major life-changing event changes your tax filing status, or the income-related monthly adjustment amount determination could be affected by your tax filing status, you will also be required to sign a statement regarding your intended income tax filing status for the tax year you request we use. ( 1 ) If you experience one or more of the events described in § 418.1205(a), (b), or (c), you must provide evidence as to how the event(s) significantly reduced your modified adjusted gross income. Examples of the type of evidence include, but are not limited to, evidence of your spouse's modified adjusted gross income and/or your modified adjusted gross income for the tax year we use.
( 2 ) If you experience one or more of the events described in § 418.1205(d), (e), (f), or (g), you must provide evidence of how the event(s) significantly reduced your modified adjusted gross income, such as a statement explaining any modified adjusted gross income changes for the tax year we used and a copy of your filed Federal income tax return (if you have filed one).
( 3 ) If your spouse experiences one or more of the events described in § 418.1205(d), (e), (f), or (g), you must provide evidence of the resulting significant reduction in your modified adjusted gross income. The evidence requirements are described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( d ) When we use information described in paragraph (c) of this section, we will request that you provide your retained copy of your Federal income tax return for the year we used when you file your taxes. We will use that information to make timely adjustments to your Medicare premium, if necessary. We will later verify the information you provide when we receive information about that tax year from IRS, as described in § 418.1140(d).
[71 FR 62931, Oct. 27, 2006, as amended at 75 FR 41087, July 15, 2010]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 73

 75

 74

 75

 74

 73

 73

 73

 73

 71

 65

 67

 67

 66

 66

 65

 66

 66

 67

 67

 67

 72

 70

 73

 74

 72

 72

 68

 73

 85

 84

 67

 71

 72

 72

 72

 71

 71

 71

 71

 63

 63

 65

 65

 64

 64

 64

 64

 64

 63

 63

 64

 66

 68

 66

 67

 66

 66

 67

 67

 68

 73

 70

 74

 73

 73

 73

 72

 72

 72

 72

 66

 65

 66

 66

 65

 65

 65

 65

 64

 65

 64

 65

 69

 69

 69

 69

 68

 68

 67

 68

 74

 78

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2002

HIGH LOW MEAN

 59.3

 61.3

 62.1

 63.0

 64.2

 64.3

 63.6

 63.3

 62.9

 61.3

 62.0

 62.4

 62.5

 62.6

 62.8

 63.6

 63.6

 63.3

 62.1

 60.3

 59.7

 62.0

 63.6

 64.9

 64.9

 65.2

 65.2

 65.8

 75.8

 68.7

 70.4

 55.7

 57.5

 58.3

 59.1

 59.9

 60.8

 60.3

 59.6

 59.0

 58.4

 58.2

 59.5

 59.7

 59.4

 59.6

 60.2

 60.4

 60.4

 59.8

 58.5

 57.7

 57.9

 59.6

 61.1

 61.9

 61.7

 62.0

 62.6

 64.2

 63.9

 66.5

 57.4

 59.3

 60.3

 61.2

 62.1

 62.6

 62.1

 61.4

 61.0

 60.1

 60.2

 61.1

 61.1

 61.1

 61.3

 61.9

 62.2

 62.0

 60.6

 59.5

 58.8

 59.8

 61.5

 63.0

 63.5

 63.4

 63.6

 64.2

 68.3

 66.2

 68.2

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.5

 8.1

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 8.1

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.0

 8.2

 8.3

 8.3

 8.1

 8.6

 8.5

 8.5

 8.5

 8.4

 8.3

 8.3

 8.0

 7.8

 7.7

 7.9

 7.8

 7.5

 7.6

 7.2

 8.1

 7.9

 7.8

 7.8

 7.7

 7.7

 7.8

 7.9

 8.0

 8.1

 7.9

 7.8

 7.8

 8.1

 8.0

 8.0

 7.8

 8.3

 8.3

 8.2

 8.2

 8.2

 8.0

 7.7

 7.5

 7.4

 7.5

 7.5

 7.0

 7.2

 7.0

 8.3

 8.0

 7.9

 7.9

 7.9

 7.8

 7.9

 8.1

 8.1

 8.2

 8.1

 7.9

 8.1

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

 8.1

 8.4

 8.4

 8.3

 8.3

 8.3

 8.1

 7.9

 7.7

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.3

 7.4

 7.1

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50170 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MOHAMMED YASIN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:18

- CR

- 1550

- 1

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mohammed Yasin was convicted of possessing a quantity of marijuana with intent to distribute. On appeal, he argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence because the stop of his
vehicle at the Ysleta Border Patrol check point violated the Fourth Amendment. He contends that the Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the primary purpose of the checkpoint changed from the enforcement

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50170 Document: 00515292902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2020No. 19

- 50170

2 of immigration laws to drug interdiction and because Border Patrol agents did
not have individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. “When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this Court reviews factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of law enforcement action de novo.” United States v. Robinson , 74 1 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014). Ordinarily, a search or seizure is unreasonable “in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.” City of Indianapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000)

. At a fixed checkpoint, however, which has as its primary purpose identifying illegal immigrants, vehicles may be briefly detained in furtherance of that purpose, and the occupants questioned, without either a warrant or any individualized reasonable suspicion. United States v.
Jaime , 473 F.3d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 2006). Border Patrol agents may conduct a canine sniff to search for drugs or concealed aliens at immigration checkpoints so long as the sniff does not lengthen the stop beyond the time necessary to verify the immigration sta tus of a vehicle’s passengers. United States v.
Ventura , 447 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2006). Yasin fails to show that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered after the stop. See Robinson , 741 F.3d at 594. The rec ord establishes that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was the enforcement of immigration laws

. See Jaime , 473 F.3d at 181. The record also reflects that Yasin was questioned at the same time that the canine sniff of the
vehicle was being conducted a nd, as a result, the canine sniff did not prolong the immigration stop

. See Ventura , 447 F.3d at 378. The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED. Case: 19-50170 Document: 00515292902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2020
§ 408.1013 What are the methods for reconsideration? If you request reconsideration, we will give you a chance to present your case. How you can present your case depends upon the issue involved and whether you are asking us to reconsider an initial determination on an application or an initial determination on an SVB suspension, reduction or termination action. The methods of reconsideration include the following: ( a ) *Case review.* We will give you an opportunity to review the evidence in our files and then to present oral and written evidence to us. We will then make a decision based on all of this evidence. The official who reviews the case will make the reconsidered determination.
( b ) *Informal conference.* In addition to following the procedures of a case review, an informal conference allows you an opportunity to present witnesses. A summary record of this proceeding will become part of the case record. The official who conducts the informal conference will make the reconsidered determination.
( c ) *Formal conference.* In addition to following the procedures of an informal conference, a formal conference allows you an opportunity to request us to subpoena adverse witnesses and relevant documents and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. A summary record of this proceeding will become a part of the case record. The official who conducts the formal conference will make the reconsidered determination.
§ 618.836 Recovery of debts due the United States or to others by Trade Adjustment Assistance offset. ( a ) *Debt due the United States.* Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the State must apply TAA benefits, payable under this part to a person (as described in § 618.832(g)), for the recovery by offset of any debt due the United States from the person.
( b ) *Debt due to others.* The State must not apply TAA Program benefits for the payment of any debt of any person to any State or any other entity or person, except for TRA and RTAA benefits as required by Federal UI law.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40858

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE LOPEZ-MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-587-1

Before KING, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Lopez-Martinez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 5, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40858

2

The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# C_2016045EN.01016901.xml

| 5.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/169

---

P7_TA(2013)0172

International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 April 2013 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Annexes II and III of Council Decision of 9 June 2011 on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of The Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (COM(2013)0035 — C7-0045/2013 — 2013/0019(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2016/C 045/32)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2013)0035), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2013)0035),

| — | having regard to the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0045/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0045/2013),

| — | having regard to Rules 55 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 55 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0091/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0091/2013),

| 1. | Approves the amendment of Annexes II and III to Council Decision 2011/432/EU as proposed by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the amendment of Annexes II and III to Council Decision 2011/432/EU as proposed by the Commission;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the Hague Conference on Private International Law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

---
p130063.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0063 Focus Ready Draft 11/19/2012

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ AH PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

Page 1p130063.eng

SAT (concerns) (11/09/2012): Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P1B1T1

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 2p130063.eng

Page 3p130063.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0063

Page 4p130063.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0063

Page 5p130063.eng

Page 6p130063.eng

Page 7
### §2152d. Assistance to foreign countries to meet minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking

#### (a) Authorization

The President is authorized to provide assistance to foreign countries directly, or through nongovernmental and multilateral organizations, for programs, projects, and activities designed to meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking (as defined in section 7102 of this title), including—

(1) the drafting of laws to prohibit and punish acts of trafficking;

(2) the investigation and prosecution of traffickers, including investigation of individuals and entities that may be involved in trafficking in persons involving sexual exploitation;

(3) the creation and maintenance of facilities, programs, projects, and activities for the protection of victims; and

(4) the expansion of exchange programs and international visitor programs for governmental and nongovernmental personnel to combat trafficking.

#### (b) Funding

Amounts made available to carry out the other provisions of subchapter I of this chapter (including part IV of subchapter II of this chapter) and the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989 [22 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.] shall be made available to carry out this section. Assistance may be provided under this section notwithstanding section 2420 of this title.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. I, §134, as added Pub. L. 106–386, div. A, §109, Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1481; amended Pub. L. 108–193, §6(f), Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2883; Pub. L. 110–457, title I, §103(b), Dec. 23, 2008, 122 Stat. 5046.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 101–179, Nov. 28, 1989, 103 Stat. 1298, which is classified principally to chapter 63 (§5401 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5401 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 110–457 inserted ", including investigation of individuals and entities that may be involved in trafficking in persons involving sexual exploitation" before semicolon at end.

2003—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–193 inserted at end "Assistance may be provided under this section notwithstanding section 2420 of this title."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### References to Subchapter I Deemed To Include Certain Parts of Subchapter II

References to subchapter I of this chapter are deemed to include parts IV (§2346 et seq.), VI (§2348 et seq.), and VIII (§2349aa et seq.) of subchapter II of this chapter, and references to subchapter II are deemed to exclude such parts. See section 202(b) of Pub. L. 92–226, set out as a note under section 2346 of this title, and sections 2348c and 2349aa–5 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

For delegation of functions of President under this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 F.R. 56673, as amended, set out as a note under section 2381 of this title.
EXHIBIT 31.1



                            CERTIFICATION


I, J. Gerald Bazewicz, President and Chief Executive Officer,
certify, that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q for the
period ended June 30, 2004, of First Keystone Corporation.

    2.   Based on my knowledge, the quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

    3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

    4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and we have:

       a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
    ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
    including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
    by others within those entities, particularly during the
    period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

       b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
    disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
    prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
    "Evaluation Date"); and

       c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
    about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
    procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

    5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

       a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of the internal controls which could adversely
    affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
    and report financial data and have identified for the
    registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
    controls; and

       b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
    management or other employees who have a significant role in
    the registrant's internal controls.





                            /s/ J. Gerald Bazewicz
                            J. Gerald Bazewicz
                            President and Chief Executive Officer


August 12, 2004


                                25
§ 641.836 What policies govern political activities? ( a ) No project under title V of the OAA may involve political activities. SCSEP recipients must ensure compliance with the requirements and prohibitions involving political activities described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) State and local employees involved in the administration of SCSEP activities may not engage in political activities prohibited under the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 15), including: ( 1 ) Seeking partisan elective office;
( 2 ) Using official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting elections, nominations for office, or fund-raising for political purposes. (5 U.S.C. 1502).
( c ) SCSEP recipients must provide all persons associated with SCSEP activities with a written explanation of allowable and unallowable political activities under the Hatch Act. A notice explaining these allowable and unallowable political activities must be posted in every workplace in which SCSEP activities are conducted. The Department will provide the form and content of the notice and explanatory material by administrative issuance. (OAA § 502(b)(l)(P)).
( d ) SCSEP recipients must ensure that: ( 1 ) No SCSEP participants or staff persons engage in partisan or nonpartisan political activities during hours for which they are being paid with SCSEP funds.
( 2 ) No participants or staff persons engage in partisan political activities in which such participants or staff persons represent themselves as spokespersons for the SCSEP.
( 3 ) No participants are employed or out-stationed in the offices of a Member of Congress, a State or local legislator, or on the staff of any legislative committee.
( 4 ) No participants are employed or out-stationed in the immediate offices of any elected chief executive officer of a State or unit of general government, except that: ( i ) Units of local government may serve as host agencies for participants, provided that their assignments are non-political; and
( ii ) While assignments may place participants in such offices, such assignments actually must be concerned with program and service activities and not in any way involved in political functions.
( 5 ) No participants are assigned to perform political activities in the offices of other elected officials. Placement of participants in such offices in non-political assignments is permissible, however, provided that: ( i ) SCSEP recipients develop safeguards to ensure that participants placed in these assignments are not involved in political activities; and
( ii ) These safeguards are described in the grant agreement and are approved by the Department and are subject to review and monitoring by the SCSEP recipient and by the Department.